an appeal against unreasonable treatment
Anna’s been in her current home for a year, from late January 2004, having joined her co-op only a month before. As it turned out, the co-op had been experiencing conflict for years before Anna’s advent, with much mediation and intervention being necessary, and many women leaving due to the stress of the meetings and the high-handed behaviour of a handful of well-entrenched members.
Anna’s first experience of difficulties with the co-op was a doozy, and it’s largely been downhill since then. On the day that she was to move in, a hot January day, with her car packed to the gunwales, she was prevented from entering by her neighbour and fellow co-op member Alison, of whom we’ll hear much more, because she hadn’t yet obtained a second payslip from her work, required to calculate her rent. Anna explained that she would get the pay-slip the next day, but Alison was adamant. Extremely stressed at this, Anna rang around the co-op for help, and was eventually able to move into the premises. The delay and stress caused by this incident resulted in the opening inspection, which took place on that day, being curtailed. Anna said she’d have a closer look at the rooms and report any further maintenance problems within the next couple of days, and this was agreed to by the Tenancy or Maintenance Officer (in fact it may be that this suggestion was made by the Officer herself). This was duly done.
But I need to go back further, to really explain why Anna and the co-op’s maintenance committee reached hostilities so quickly. Before Anna moved in she was advised by the outgoing tenant, also a co-op member, to insist that the house be painted, inside and out, as this hadn’t been done in over ten years. The parting advice was ‘if you don’t insist, they won’t do it’. So Anna did insist, and even had the temerity to suggest that she, as the incoming tenant, should have some say as to the colour of paint and so on. Now, such an attitude would seem to be eminently reasonable, and would be encouraged in my co-op, but this co-op’s maintenance committee immediately saw Anna’s attitude as a threat. They tried to argue that the paint had already been bought, the colours chosen. Whether or not this was true, the fact that they hadn’t even considered that the incoming tenant might wish to have a say about the paint colours in her own home is quite extraordinary, and speaks to the culture of a co-op in which consultation is far from being the norm. It’s a co-op which might well suit women who don’t want their own say, who don’t want to make waves, who want all decisions made for them and so on, but few women fit that description.
So these early maintenance requests, with regard to the painting of the house and certain other items such as the guttering, the gate and so forth, none of which were remotely unreasonable, quickly saw Anna branded by the Maintenance Committee as a ‘troublemaker’, and a complaining letter was tabled at a meeting in March, only two months after the tenant had moved in. It contained many inaccuracies and, basically, Anna was amazed by it.
Anna’s first experience of difficulties with the co-op was a doozy, and it’s largely been downhill since then. On the day that she was to move in, a hot January day, with her car packed to the gunwales, she was prevented from entering by her neighbour and fellow co-op member Alison, of whom we’ll hear much more, because she hadn’t yet obtained a second payslip from her work, required to calculate her rent. Anna explained that she would get the pay-slip the next day, but Alison was adamant. Extremely stressed at this, Anna rang around the co-op for help, and was eventually able to move into the premises. The delay and stress caused by this incident resulted in the opening inspection, which took place on that day, being curtailed. Anna said she’d have a closer look at the rooms and report any further maintenance problems within the next couple of days, and this was agreed to by the Tenancy or Maintenance Officer (in fact it may be that this suggestion was made by the Officer herself). This was duly done.
But I need to go back further, to really explain why Anna and the co-op’s maintenance committee reached hostilities so quickly. Before Anna moved in she was advised by the outgoing tenant, also a co-op member, to insist that the house be painted, inside and out, as this hadn’t been done in over ten years. The parting advice was ‘if you don’t insist, they won’t do it’. So Anna did insist, and even had the temerity to suggest that she, as the incoming tenant, should have some say as to the colour of paint and so on. Now, such an attitude would seem to be eminently reasonable, and would be encouraged in my co-op, but this co-op’s maintenance committee immediately saw Anna’s attitude as a threat. They tried to argue that the paint had already been bought, the colours chosen. Whether or not this was true, the fact that they hadn’t even considered that the incoming tenant might wish to have a say about the paint colours in her own home is quite extraordinary, and speaks to the culture of a co-op in which consultation is far from being the norm. It’s a co-op which might well suit women who don’t want their own say, who don’t want to make waves, who want all decisions made for them and so on, but few women fit that description.
So these early maintenance requests, with regard to the painting of the house and certain other items such as the guttering, the gate and so forth, none of which were remotely unreasonable, quickly saw Anna branded by the Maintenance Committee as a ‘troublemaker’, and a complaining letter was tabled at a meeting in March, only two months after the tenant had moved in. It contained many inaccuracies and, basically, Anna was amazed by it.
posted by Stewart at 10:39 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home